The title chosen for this conference, "The Future of Religious Colleges," is most encouraging to those of us engaged in the enterprise. Optimist that I am, I read in the title a positive presumption that there is, indeed, "a future" for the religious college and that it is worthy of our consideration. Although the methods of its delivery constantly change, we know that higher education is here to stay. The emphasis here on the descriptive word "religious" is what I find encouraging.

One must always begin a presentation such as this with some assumptions. Since the general topic for consideration is the future of religious colleges, I would like to identify two assumptions upon which my observations will be made.

First, we must agree upon some understanding of what is meant by the expression "religious colleges." Given the diversity of religions that exist in this country, I shall presume that for our purposes the term "religious" refers to an association with any recognized entity, group or organization whose reason for being is primarily spiritual and/or moral, based upon an acknowledged faith in God. Given the diversity of institutions of higher learning that exist in this country, I shall presume that for our purposes the term "colleges" includes all of them with the exception of those whose exclusive purpose is to educate or prepare only students for professional religious ministry such as free-standing seminaries, ministerial or rabbinical schools, and so forth. More importantly, I shall presume that for our purposes, the expression "religious colleges" refers to those institutions of higher learning that exist in this country where the religion of the founding or sponsoring religious group has some direct influence upon the institution itself. By "direct" I mean "real," "observable," "clear," "effective," that there is "an active connection between a particular religion and a particular academic institution." It is not a "religious college" simply because its origins were religious, or its founders were clergymen or other religious women or men, or because the campus is peppered with religious symbols and works of art, or because there is a chapel. The direct influence to which I refer can be seen in terms of institutional identity, mission, governance, administration, criteria for faculty hiring, curricula, student life, campus ministries, policies, operations and procedures, and so forth. Where some, most or all of these activities of the college are directly influenced by religion and religious affiliation, one finds there a "religious college."

Second, we must agree that these institutions, whose future we are considering, want that future and want to remain "religious colleges." In other words, I shall presume for our purposes that there is an institutional imperative within the religious college that it continue to experience the direct influence of a particular religious body, denomination or the like in the areas of institutional activity already mentioned.

For a college to be directly influenced by a particular religion and to want a future as a religious college communicates to the secular academic world that the institution possesses: (1) a sense of its own distinctiveness and difference within the academy; and, (2) a conviction that it makes a purposeful contribution to higher learning. If there is a future for the religious college it is or will be because the religious college makes a distinctive contribution to the transmission of and the creation of knowledge that is at the heart of the academic endeavor. If there is a future for the religious college it is or will be because learner, teacher and society at large value that distinctive contribution to higher education.

Permit me to offer a few general thoughts — perhaps a tad homiletic— about the concept of the religious college. The term "education" is derived from the Latin phrase e ducere, "to lead out of or to draw from." In the case of our profession, we as educators lead the learner out of the "darkness" of ignorance into the light of knowledge and truth, as we ourselves have been led by others. In a sense, we as educators speak with the creative God of the Hebrew Scriptures, and say "Let there be light!" In the darkness, little is revealed. In the light, we see, we learn. In the light, we can understand what we learn more fully. And so we teach what we ourselves have learned and continue to learn in our own experience of illumination.

Education sheds light on human experience through reason. It enlightens the mind. Religious education does so in a way that identifies human experience in terms of the God of both reason and faith. Through religious education, we encounter truth, intelligible to the reasoning mind but also accessible on a deeper level and meaningful to the believing heart and the soul. I read once that "religion is not primarily a matter of facts but a matter of meanings."

In the Christian Scriptures, when Jesus of Nazareth stood before Pontius Pilate he explained the purpose of the teaching mission for which he had been condemned as "testifying to the truth." "Everyone," he said, "who belongs to the truth hears my voice." The outrage of Pilate's response "What is truth?" has echoed through every age since his encounter with Christ. The reasoning mind can understand that historical encounter, those historical words, and Pilate's historical outrage. Was this religious man claiming to have a different access to truth than the people before whom he stood? The reasoning mind of the person of faith finds in such history something more: something in which to believe, something that has a deeper meaning than mere history alone will admit, something that influences life. The reasoning mind of the person of faith says "yes," there is a different access to truth than the mind alone can grasp.

In the Christian scholastic tradition, truth is considered the proper object of the reasoning mind seeking knowledge. That tradition does not exclude the contribution of faith. The reasoning mind does not seek falsehood or error. The meaning and urgency of truth, however, are the goals of the believing heart and soul seeking truth's purpose. Truth is not true because we believe it. The truth is true, whether we believe it or not. To consider truth as a category of knowledge or science or reason without at the same time seeking its deeper, God-given meaning, purpose and value is to limit truth and, therefore, to separate the essential and integral relationship between reason and faith. Both seek and serve one truth.

Religious colleges attempt to present both reason and faith not separately but as two distinct yet related components of this one integrated truth. It is interesting to note that some of the most accomplished and widely recognized institutions of higher learning in the United States identify their origins in some religious faith confession. For some reason, however, these religious affiliations grew less important to participation in the academic enterprise with the passage of time, and so two different models of and approaches to higher education developed: the purely secular model/approach and the religious model/approach.

The topic of the present discussion is the future and not the history of religious higher education in this country. It is difficult, however, to ponder the future with any degree of realism without paying some attention, albeit brief, to the past. The history with which I am most familiar, of course, is that of the Catholic Church and its involvement in higher education. My observations here will reflect that fact since the Catholic Church, with its current claim to 235 colleges and universities, represents the largest and most comprehensive denominational influence within the academy.

In his substantial work, The Dying of the Light, James Burtchaell makes the following assertion about religious colleges and universities in this country:

In fact, Burtchaell --- unlike the assumption with which I began my presentation --- refers to the religious foundations of these same colleges as "circumstantial and indirect." Hence, in his opinion, it should come as no surprise that many of them have "disengaged" from the religious affiliations of their founders since the actual relationships "that tethered college to church" were "feeble on the brightest of days." A reasonable person might ask, "then, why bother?" And if it is true, as Burtchaell notes, that "until the later nineteenth century it was conventional for colleges in the United States to be identified by association with a Christian Church," a reasonable person might respond "there must have been some compelling reason."

Burtchaell contends that, apart from the expectation of some level of literacy among clergy and ministers of the various founding denominations, the answer might well have been more practical than spiritual, although some religious motivation cannot be completely ignored. Churches were the only social entity that had a claim upon household incomes. The training of professional ministers for service in those churches as well as the training of lawyers, doctors and other skilled professionals within the denominational community brought with it the hoped-for patronage and financial support of members of the various congregations. In other words, these colleges met a perceived religious need within the congregations for which people were willing to contribute. It was in their own best interest. As knowledge and education in themselves became more valued within society and access to independent funding became more available, dependence upon a church or religious body began to diminish.

It has been suggested that Burtchaell is guilty of "historical oversimplification." True or not, I find it hard to believe that some more enduring motivation than the merely practical was not present within the founders of religious colleges from the beginning, joining them to the confession of their founding or sponsoring religious organizations.

In 1789, for example, Georgetown University was founded, the first Catholic institution of higher learning in the nation. Prior to that time American Catholics numbered less than 22,000. Coupled with the strong anti-Catholic sentiment prevalent within the colonies then, there did not seem to be much need for Catholic higher education apart from seminaries for the training of Catholic clergy. Evidence suggests that the motivation behind Georgetown's foundation was primarily religious or spiritual and moral in nature. Its founders wrote:

Twentieth century American Catholic Church historian John Tracy Ellis stated that this "moralistic ideology" brought into being other Catholic institutes of higher learning throughout the nineteenth century. Unfortunately, at least according to Ellis, Catholic higher education became wedded to this moralism while colleges and universities of other Christian denominations developed a broader approach to the intellectual advancement of the nation. The end result, in Ellis' opinion, was a perceived intellectual and scholarly mediocrity among Catholic academicians which, in the past century, has driven them to become more recognized for scholarship among their religiously "liberated" or "disengaged" academic peers than for denominational loyalty and affiliation.

The fact of the matter is: some religious colleges remained religious as I have described it in my first assumption above while others began as religious institutions but ceased to be religious over time.

What will the future hold for the religious college: a "dying light or new dawning?" The answer to that question depends on a number of factors.

The 2000 Higher Education Directory indicates that there are 4077 institutions of higher education in the United States. Within that number are included two and four year, public and private colleges and universities. The Directory also identifies those institutions that have a specific "religious affiliation" as numbering approximately 764. If one is familiar with some or many of these schools, it becomes clear as one scans that list that the meaning of "religious affiliation or control" varies greatly. Of the 764 institutions listed, approximately 235 are identified as Roman Catholic, the largest subset. The next largest group is United Methodist with 87 colleges, followed by Southern Baptist and Presbyterian with 42 each, followed by Baptist with 39, Evangelical Lutheran with 34 and Jewish with 26.

Earlier in this presentation, I posited the assumption that by "religious" is meant some direct influence by the sponsoring religious body upon the institution in terms of identity, mission, governance and so forth. I also assumed that there was an institutional imperative to remain "religious" in that sense. One would have to do some exhaustive research to test those assumptions accurately in every instance, research that I have not done. A quick glance at a variety of web-sites and other institutional literature, however, would argue that my general assumptions do not always hold true in the concrete. I know that to be the case with respect to some institutions labeled as "Roman Catholic." What we are left with are many institutions that may have originated or existed within a religious context but have moved in other directions. For the sake of discussion, however, I will maintain my assumptions of direct influence and institutional imperative because, in my opinion, these are the only institutions that are, in fact, religious and that will have a future as such.

The first element that should be considered regarding the future of religious colleges is that of distinctive identity. If these institutions have a future, they must be able to clearly distinguish themselves among their secular counterparts in such a way that their unique identities can be easily perceived and known. Who needs "just another school?" Distinctive identity is one real key to their future. At the same time, they must be recognizable as credible institutions of higher learning. Take the institution that I serve, for example. I often say that if we are not an excellent Catholic university, we are not an excellent anything. Our title itself is distinctive: "The Catholic University of America." Not only are we a university but we are "Catholic." Not only are we "Catholic" but we are "the" Catholic University of "America" and the only Catholic university that is a member of the American Association of Universities. Among Catholic colleges and universities, you cannot get much more distinctive than that and yet the title reveals little about the real substance of the institution and its identity. Other religious colleges and universities may not bear a title that so immediately presents their distinctiveness. And yet, mention Emory or Baylor or Yeshiva or Brigham Young or St. Olaf University or Georgetown. Unless a person is totally unfamiliar with the American academic world, the religious identities of these colleges and universities are fairly well known. The issue is not so much their titles but, rather, the way in which they identify and define themselves and the way in which others identify and perceive them. They possess a distinctive identity that is attached to what they do as institutions of higher learning. This is a Catholic university, that is a Methodist college, that one is Baptist, and so forth.

Once the distinctive identity of the religious college is established, the future of the institution depends upon the way in which that identity influences or impacts the academic enterprise and life beyond it. What unique contribution does the particular college as "religious" make to and within higher education? To its students? To society? Yes, it is religious and that has been made clear. But what does that mean? Here is the next key to the future: mission. Identity must be coupled with a mission that reinforces the identity or the identity falls flat. Mission must be derived and flow from a distinctive identity in visible, tangible ways. In recent decades, institutions have produced "mission statements" designed to present the purposes of these institutions as "compelling" and worthy of notice.

Take Baylor University in Texas, for example, the largest Baptist university in the world. Its mission statement reads

It is a religious academic institution that identifies the way religion impacts its academic activities; it has a distinctive religious academic mission.

Consider St. Olaf College in Minnesota. Its mission statement says that it

Again, this is a religious academic institution with a distinctive religious academic mission.

Yeshiva University in New York took out a full page add in the New York Times a few years ago making unambiguously clear its Jewish religious orientation. It is the oldest and most comprehensive educational institution under Jewish auspices in America, integrating knowledge with "the richness of Jewish culture and thought." It has been identified as one of the top 50 research universities in the country. A religious academic institution with a distinctive religious academic mission.

Brigham Young University in Utah states that its mission "is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life" and that within "a broad university education … all students should be taught the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ … central to the Church's purposes." No doubt there what BYU is or does.

The reality of the situation and, therefore, the fundamental urgency in all of this conversation about the future of religious colleges rests in their ability to be distinct and to translate that distinctiveness into a religious institutional academic mission. What is the "value added" to higher education by these religious colleges and their missions and is this "value added" something that interests people, that draws them to the institution in such a way that what they perceive as being uniquely provided is something that they really want? In a profane or even crass way, the final key to their future that I would like to mention is the ability of religious colleges to market themselves as both religious and academically superior to an audience that wants the "product" – what they have to offer – an audience and an institution whose "market share" includes religion, religious values, religious orientation, religious faith as well as a solid academic experience.

I would like to say a brief word about the current situation that confronts Catholic universities and colleges in this country. I am sure you are quite aware of recent discussions and debates in the Catholic Church and Catholic academic community that have surrounded the 1990 publication of a papal document "On Catholic Universities" entitled Ex Corde Ecclesiae ("From the Heart of the Church") and subsequent Catholic Church legislation created to implement the vision of that text. While the document has presented, in the words of its author, Pope John Paul II, "a sort of 'magna carta'" for Catholic institutions of higher learning" – a vision statement – the attempts by Church authorities to apply that vision through concrete juridic or legislative norms has been resisted by officials within many of the institutions they attempt to address. The issues in question are multiple and complex: appropriate institutional autonomy vs. hierarchical oversight; academic freedom vs. doctrinal integrity; scholarly credibility vs. advancement of Church teaching; competition with secular peers vs. distinctive Catholic identity. The implications of these issues will certainly have an impact upon they way these institutions operate and they way they are or will be perceived.

The one positive outcome of this entire situation has been its advancement of the discussion – both within Church and academy – of the distinctiveness of religious identity and its meaning. The documents in question have been preceded by unprecedented and broad consultation of a variety of constituencies. A negative outcome, however, has been the creation of a sense of division – again within Church and academy – about the most appropriate manner in which to bring that distinctive identity to bear within the broader American academic arena. That division, unfortunately enough, is often painted in emotionally charged, Catholic ideological lines.

Most will agree that there is "much to enable and inspire" those involved in Catholic higher education within Ex Corde Ecclesiae. The attempt to legislate that inspiration has created great discomfort within the Catholic academy. My own concern has been and remains that the debate has focused the discussion on the prerogatives of bishops and theologians without really considering the needs of the consumers of the product, namely the students and the society in which they will take their place and which they will influence and shape for generations to come. My fear is that both "the baby and the bathwater" run the risk of being lost to the Church in the meantime.

The question posed to us today has been "The Future of the Religious College: Dying Light or New Dawning?" I shall return to the general assumptions with which I began this presentation for an answer.

First, there must be an institutional imperative that the college remain religious. In other words, those responsible for the college and its future must see an advantage, make that determination, adhere to it and provide for the necessary institutional and external support, financial and otherwise.

Second, the religious character or identity of the religious college must be evident through the operations and activities of the institution that guarantee its continued existence. That is only possible if the sponsoring religion or religious group exercises a direct influence upon these operations and activities that is demonstrable (that is, conveys a distinctive identity), that makes a contribution as religious, not merely to the advancement of a particular religion, but to higher education (that is, presents a compelling and credible institutional mission), and that is perceived by the public as a product worth their investment (that is, promotes values that are seen as necessary).

I believe that there will always be institutions of higher learning in the United States that will bear witness to these assumptions. Although the light may die for some for any number of reasons, the day is just beginning for others for the reasons I have put forward here. I am convinced, therefore, that future of the religious college is assured within the diversity that is American higher education.

Very Reverend David M. O'Connell, C.M.

President

The Catholic University of America

Washington, D.C. 20064